A Review of Creationist Web Sites

You picked a duzy of a web site, NosyNed. Yours is hard to top, so I pick my choice for most amusing argument from the web site you referenced:"According to the horse theory, our modern horse evolved gradually from the now extinct Eohippus, a 28 inch tall, multi-toed mammal. But here is the problem with that theory. Evolution says we go from the less complex to the more complex, from the weak to the strong. But this prime example of the evolutionary theory fails to comply with its own premise in at least three major areas. First, a more complex 4-toed mammal (3 toes on the hind quarter) 'evolved' into a less complex one toed horse."I guess it's time to throw out all that other weak scientific evidence. When you've got powerful arguments like this one, the fossils and the geologic column become meaningless.Wow

NosyNed wrote: "Thanks for helping though I don't think that's what you intended."It most certainly was what I intended. I know my username makes me sound like a creationist, and I do in fact believe in one God as Creator. However, science is not the source for that belief of mine. I am quite convinced that science will eventually, and accurately, come up with a good theory for abiogenesis, and "descent with modification" from a single ancestor seems to me to be far and away the best explanation for the geology and history of this planet.I do want to disagree with you a litte. Okay, I acknowledge that simple to complex is not exactly what evolution predicts, but that is the general trend we see, as far as I understand. What I thought was ludicrous was the suggestion that a one-toed horse must be less complex than a four-toed eohippus.By the way, I used to be a young earther. Evidence made a good start for turning me, but what made it easy to get past my literal Genesis One convictions was the dishonesty and the intentional ignorance of creationists. I knew there was no way God was on their side, and I've always had a problem with defending God. It seems like he ought to be able to do that himself, and my experience is that he's done a pretty good job of it.

Ned,I have no problem with your original assertion that evolution doesn't predict increasing complexity. I was only trying to say that the amusing thing, to me, on the web site I mentioned was the idea that Eohippus had to be more complex than a modern horse because it had more toes.I found Lyn Margulis' point that mitochondria are really the most successful life form rather interesting. While I haven't read enough to understand all her ideas on the subject, I do find it hard to argue that if mitochondria were once a separate life form, they sure found a great survival mechanism through making almost all later life dependent on them, even most bacteria.We're off topic, but since I'm the only one who gave you another web site quote, I guess all the other posts were off topic, too.But, since I'm here, how about this one. John Woodmorappe made a list of 350 discrepant radiometric dates from published literature. Glenn Morton then answered Woodmorappe by posting a graph of Woodmorappe's dates, which show that the dates, all chosen by Woodmorappe because they are more than 20% off, still go in a generally correct linear direction by age.This is the hilarious part. Woodmorappe, in order to defang Morton, writes an entire reply attacking the data! It's Woodmorappe's own data, but one of his lines is, "Finally, it is the very selective publication of obtained isotopic dates (a fact that Morton acknowledges) that makes any would-be comparison of the numbers of good versus bad dates totally meaningless, nullifying his cheap shot argument all the more."Well, it may nullify Morton's response, but it most certainly nullifies Woodmorappe's original article. Why did he publish those dates, forcing Morton's reply, if his compilation of bad dates is totally meaningless (which was Morton's point, anyway).Sigh...Oh, Woodmorappe's article is at http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp.